User talk:Bob Burkhardt

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Accessories-dictionary.svg
Hello Bob Burkhardt, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here.

You'll find an (incomplete) index of our works listed at Wikisource:Works, although for very broad categories like poetry you may wish to look at the categories like Category:Poems instead.

Please take a glance at our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). Most questions and discussions about the community are held at the Scriptorium.

The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page!

Stratford490 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

See also[edit]

Thank you for correcting my typos in the EB articles[edit]

A few of them are especially embarrassing. "Devolution to abstract principles of democracy and liberty"? I remember thinking that was a really strange way of using "devolution", and now I know why. Ha! Athelwulf (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Thanks for having your version there. It helped me find some stray characters and problems in the copy I was using (OCR text from archive.org which I had proofed but by no means caught all the problems). Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Full author template[edit]

Hi Bob, The {{Author}} template requests that its use be of the full template and to retain the order. If you are using Firefox as your browser, you can even get set it within your preferences to load the relevant Header and Author templates in the respective namespaces. Generally with new authors a quick attempt will be made to add relevant detail. I often find that Archive.org can give some basic detail, eg. http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A(Carl%20Mirbt) Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for the notice. I don't mind putting in more detail if I can get the info quickly. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Sweet. I am doing many author pages for DNB and we seem to have a number of contributors in common. Happy to have a look for basic info in other sources if that helps. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki'd 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Amsterdam (Holland)[edit]

Hi Bob. The text now at 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Amsterdam (Holland) was on a talk page at WP with a request to move to WS. I have imported text, and wondered whether you would be able to work your EB1911 magic on the piece. Thanks! -- billinghurst (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Amsterdam isn't on my todo list, but I'm sure putting it where you did will eventually get it to someone's attention. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
k Thx -- billinghurst (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

EB1911 Volume 19[edit]

I meant to respond to this some time ago, but I got busy with other things. Thanks for listing these pages on the index page. My previous experiment with putting articles about the same encyclopedic subject together on the same page had mixed results. Linking to these from "works about" on an author page only works if the person is an author. Even looking at the EB alone show how incredibly complicated the task can become. (See my User:Eclecticology/EB Synopsis.) Wikisource has done little or nothing so far about material from old dictionaries (like Johnson's) where relatively short articles are commonplace. The optimal solution is likely somewhere between the two extremes of completely separate articles, and articles accumulated on a single page. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Britannica articles needing translations[edit]

I've created a new category, Category:Texts needing translations, and have moved all the articles from the Britannica articles needing translations categories to new Texts needing translations categories. I've proposed the old categories for deletion at Wikisource:Proposed deletions. I see you're still adding articles to the old categories, so you should probably start using the new ones or argue against the switch at Proposed deletions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies; I realized that I'd failed to completely follow through with the deletion by adding the notes on the pages and notifying you when I saw the new articles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

EB aid - EB1911 Article Link[edit]

FYI I have created {{EB1911 Article Link}}, so if you like it, you may use it. If you don't like the name of the template, we may rename it. An example of use of the template is in the article 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Epistemology. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

EB1911 headwords[edit]

I have entered the article "Negotiable instrument" in EB1911, but I wonder whether it should better be capitalized as "Negotiable Instrument". EB1911 refers to its articles in title case rather than sentence case; this is not apparent in headwords, as these are written in all caps such as "BILL OF EXCHANGE", but it is apparent in links to articles, such as when the article "Negotiable Instrument" refers to "Bill of Exchange" in "see also"[1], capitalized as "Bill of Exchange" with capital "E".

In this edit, I have added to style manual that article names should be capitalized in sentence case ("Bill of exchange"), but I am no longer sure it is the best option; I codified what I have seen was the common practice.

What do you think of this issue? Do you know of any past discussion about capitalization of headwords of EB1911 articles? --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

modified edit[edit]

I made some changes to your edit here, revert them or let me know if you disagree. Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I answered at my talk, but another comment: I prefer your template, the links are appropriate and it is a simple citation style. You might check WP:MOS to see what the style is this week ;-) Is it possible to add an option to hide the icon? Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages for share Dictionary entries[edit]

At some stage there were some general pages created that lumped together EB1911, DNB and other dictionary/encyclopaedia pages. Many seem to have now been split back to component parts, though the co-joined pages still existed. I am now converting them to {{disambiguation}} pages, and it is probably how we can look to manage non-fiction pages where the same person is covered by multiple sources, eg. Blake, William and Monro, Robert. If you have any thoughts, happy to hear them.-- billinghurst (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Index:1911 Encyclopedia Britanica vol-1a-ad valorem .djvu[edit]

I presume you are aware that [[Index:1911 Encyclopedia Britanica vol-1a-ad valorem .djvu] is uploaded at Commons and available (other vols. I haven't checked.) At the DNB project we have been having great success using the Page: environment to prepare text for Proofread and Validated stages. If there is any of our learnings that we can share, we are more than happy to do so. billinghurst (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We proof against the scans (held at Commons) and from the text layer we can import it and modify, transclude into main ns to look like this User:Bob Burkhardt/example. billinghurst (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, that volume at Commons doesn't seem to have a text layer. At DNB we have been getting the scans at least with a rudimentary scan which often means that we can start onto a proofread, rather than the initial transcription. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

1911-related templates[edit]

Hello - I assumed I'd need to talk to you at some point about matters of common interest; but what has come up was from an unexpected direction. In looking at how Wikipedia links to Wikisource pages via templates, I have found a few things to improve; but the situation with EB1911 is a bit more complex. The obvious template for what I'd want is {{1911}} over there; but the construction is somewhat awkward. For other things (DNB, Catholic Encyclopedia and a couple I have set up recently) you just pipe the template with the article name. The template {{1911}} allows one to put in any URL; and so a link to an article here is easy enough. But here's the catch: going via the URL would be a link subject to "nofollow", while a link using the interwiki code "s" would not. So being perfectionist about it, I'd like to see some modification or alternate template not subject to that disadvantage; and looking around I didn't see the exact thing I wanted. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Got a EB vol who would like some guidance[edit]

Gday. Via my talk page, I have had a query from Innotata who is looking for guidance on EB1911. I can answer the general questions, though I hesitate with some of the more specific guidance and templates that you have in play. Care to address them? Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Index:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 5).djvu[edit]

Hi. I don't know if you noticed, but I uploaded File:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 5).djvu. So, for that volume at least, we can use H:Side and track progress using Index:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 5).djvu. I've been moving work that you've done on that volume into pages like Page:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 5).djvu/105, and then changing your main space articles to reference the pages like this. I wanted to let you know since I noticed you add a few more manually to that volume today. Thanks. Wknight94 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

EB1911 - titles of nobility[edit]

Hello there. I would like to move 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Pulaski, Casimir, Count to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Pulaski, Casimir. The reason is that the part ", Count" is not boldfaced in the original, merely typeset in small-caps. Thus, the part ", Count" appears not to be part of the headword proper. Thoughts? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re "It isn't too critical here, but I am trying to stick to a simple rule, the rule being to include the title, with an exception for repeated last names where a repetition in the boldface section is excluded along with the title." I too am trying to stick to a simple rule, namely that what is boldfaced becomes the headword of the entry. What Wikipedia does is not really important for the design of headwords of EB1911.
Re "But my sense is 1911 Britannica favors the label "Casimir, Count Pulaski"." If Britannica wanted to have ", Count" in the headword, they would have used boldface for it, wouldn't they? Why would they use PULASKI, CASIMIR, Count instead of PULASKI, CASIMIR, COUNT?
I would move 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Platen-Hallermund, August, Graf von to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Platen-Hallermund, August. I have already done that with several similar entries some time ago. Here again, the original PNG has PLATEN-HALLERMUND, AUGUST, Graf von, which is quite indicative of what the headwords is, to me anyway. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Re "Yes, my simple rule is probably introducing more complexity than necessary. Let's use yours": Thank you. I am going for it, renaming the pages that I find. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I have done some moving. I am not sure I have caught all of the articles, but many of them have been moved. I have removed the following titles: Baron, Baron von, Comte de, Count, Count von, Duke of, Freiherr von, Marquis de, Marquis d', Prince von, Ritter von. I have left the updating of the links to previous and next largely unfinished. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

EB1911 - disambiguating words[edit]

I think that disambiguating words in article titles of EB1911 should better be capitalized. So I would move 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Abbot, George (writer) to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Abbot, George (Writer). The rationale is that we use title case ("Eunuch Flute") in article titles, so we should also use it with disambiguating words. Is that okay with you? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a new section to Wikisource talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia_Britannica/Style Manual, as you proposed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

EB1911 - splitting articles[edit]

Hello again, I for one do not like what you have done to the article Metaphysics of EB1911, splitting it to several pages. Before the splitting, it was possible to print the complete article from one page. I do not see the benefits of this splitting.

I may be in the minority with this opinion that splitting is better avoided, though. I do not know. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a hard-wired policy. The Wiki software complains if pages are over 32K. I ignore it unless there seems to be a natural way to split the article, and in this case there seemed to be one. I have trouble with really large articles in that my editor starts to feel the burden, and this is one of those articles. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
From what I understand, it is not a hard-wired enforced policy of Wikisource. While it is true that the wiki software complains on pages longer than some threshold, this is merely a setting in the wiki software that is in no way enforced. I admit that the split page 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Metaphysics had 286,338 bytes, which is a lot. It had 47,000 words. The part pages into which you have split it have each less than 100,000 bytes: 6,225 bytes; 27,822 bytes; 28,544 bytes; 54,017 bytes; 78,416 bytes; 48,703 bytes; 47,650 bytes. I do not know which editor you are using, but you could consider switching to one that handles long text files well. Then again, printing the whole article has been made much more laborious. Counting the number of words of the whole article is now more laborious, too. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a section on this issue at the end of the EB1911 style sheet. I would present your case on the talk page for that, and perhaps elsewhere. I support the style specification as is. There is certainly a range of tolerance on this as with most things on Wikipedia. I think the article is much more electronically digestible split up. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I have posted to Wikisource_talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica#Breaking up into multiple pages. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarify opinion on {{TextQuality}}?[edit]

Would you remind returning to the discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Phase_out_TextQuality_templates_and_system and clarifying your position on the removal of the text quality radio buttons? There is wide support for keeping {{TextQuality}} in its current state for use in works not using the page namespace, but a number of users would like to remove the radio buttons to simplify the interface and not confuse new users. Your opinion on that would be helpful. —Spangineerwp (háblame) 17:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Colliers[edit]

The standard practice for new texts is generally scan-based transcript. Would you like me to show you how to set that up? Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, see you found a problem with that, recent change! Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I've provided links to archive.org which supplied OCR (this is the scan-based transcript you are talking about?). I'm doing better with Collier's than with Americana where I am still looking for scans for two volumes. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The search engine there sometimes produces results, but try adding "site:archive.org" to a google search as well.

Getting the djvu package here makes a big difference, anyone proofing or verifying the text would need to hunt out the text and corresponding scan; they don't bother and improvements don't happen, therefore the current practice. Let me know if I can help with that. Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've worked on it. All the Americana volumes are actually at Google Books too. I was missing six volumes, and getting it down to two is actually a big improvement. Searching at Google Books was pretty useless. A search on "Encyclopedia Americana" just turned up three or so hits, and I know they have over 40 volumes (counting duplicates)! I found some of the missing by trying archive links that were missing from the links that turned up in an archive.org searches, but looking for a sequence in Google ids is pretty impossible. I will try your idea of doing a Google search at archive.org.

I don't have the bandwidth to upload encyclopedia volumes to Wikimedia Commons. Google makes it very easy to get to a scan if they have the volume, just use their search in book. But all the volumes at Collier's are at archive.org. I do put page numbers in my transcriptions to even with archive.org, a section could be located easily with the archive.org reader. Of course the interested reader would have to know to look at my source comment. But the archive reader is not difficult to browse. Another alternative would be to add Google links for the ten volumes. That would give easier access to the scans, if only I could find all the volumes at Google. Their system doesn't seem to facilitate that task.

I think Dan Polansky has made some good points about the shortcomings of the transclusion approach. I also find it slows me down, though I do think reconstructing the full encyclopedia page is valuable. It is not that easy to browse through the completed pages though that I have seen, even if they are there and transcribed. No previous and next pointers that I have seen. I think the scan indexes are good to have as an alternative, but the non-transclusion approach can work OK. There are other alternatives for providing easy scan access, though not internal to Wikimedia sites. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of that user's views, but his initial impressions may help us to improve the scheme. You've made more contribs to that namespace, so it would be helpful if you describe how it slowed you down: one thing I can think of is that IA.org gives the text layer as one page, and you can search that when you have a particular article in mind. Other limitations are probably not related to transclusion, a matter of navigation and search I suspect. Cygnis insignis (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Born, Ignaz[edit]

Hi, I did this, is there any habits about the wp: links in header note when the page exists as Author:, remove it because it's easily reachable through the Author: page ? Phe (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The style guide only mentions links to other articles from within the article text, and then only when the article explicitly refers the reader to another article. Personally I think links within the article text should be limited to this sort of link, and that other sorts of links, to author pages and other Wikisource contributions and even other articles not specifically referred to, just confuse things. But author links as you have done are enough of a convention, maybe they should be incorporated into the style manual as another sort of in-text link. Personally I just put something in the extra_notes or just omit linking altogether. I can live with your practice. It seems more succinct than my procedure, and, wherever the link gets put, I think it is better to have an author page link than not to have one. Probably should be discussed on the Style Manual talk page at some point, but I'm not ready to do that myself now. Thanks for mentioning the issue. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

'warning, old book' …?[edit]

Do you imagine that some innocent will consult this classic edition for their homework, rather than going to wikipedia or a better site? Do we add a disclaimer to every old book, other than noting the year? If the work has so many short-comings that we need to modify and make it more wikipedia-like, then why bother adding it at all? cygnis insignis 21:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You have some particular work in mind? Your comment is enigmatic to me. I can only see Wikisource information providing support or background information for Wikipedia articles, not a substitute. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
An unsigned comment misled me, [2], so apologies. This relates to WS:PD#EB1911_category_hierarchy, which you have firmly opposed. cygnis insignis 22:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

NIE/Blake, Wm[edit]

Nice one. I could link some of the refs, the now rare Malkin for example, if you thought it useful. cygnis insignis 21:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised by all I found on Blake on the author page. Normally I don't do links on anything but q.v. stuff, but there is such a wealth of info on Wikisource, doing the links here could be useful to call attention to it. I hope to get to the eb1911 article as well. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The author page needs a clean-up, by the untidy person who knows where it all is. That's why I offered to make the links ;-) The changing views on Blake are very interesting, I'm curious about how EB summarised him then and now. cygnis insignis 23:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I tried to make a start on the author page clean-up when I added the eb1911 article. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica Header[edit]

Please see Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Header. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take another look. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

EB1911: Classified list of articles[edit]

I want to draw your attention to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Classified List of Articles, which I have extended back in April 2010. This page seems to be the best table of contents EB1911 currently has, organized by topics. I have used 1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Classified_List_of_Articles#Philosophy_and_Psychology as a worklist for articles on philosophy. Working from this list seems more interesting than proceeding alphabetically, as this list contains only some of the most important articles. The list is incomplete; I have only filled with links to articles some of the leading sections of the list. This is just FYI, as a way of recommendation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Proceeding categorically, and categories in general in EB1911, have never seemed that compelling to me enough to work on them or from them, at least lately. I did do a lot of musical instruments at one point. There the author as much as the category interested me. I do appreciate your contribution in helping organize this page. Maybe I will find something there at some point. Usually I am looking for specific names or topics that I have run into in my reading inside or outside EB1911. It started with Carl Schurz's memoirs and branched out from there. And I have found it interesting proceeding alphabetically, just for the things I run across, and also comparing ranges between the different encyclopedias I've been working on, and comparing how they handle a particular subject has been interesting. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Spaces[edit]

Any chance you know how to fix the spaces on this work? It looks ugly :D

I tried two edits. Looks better now? There are still problems, but perhaps other editors will drop by later. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's all I can really ask when Shanghaiing random passers-by :) Thanks!

trailing space, and 'returns'[edit]

You have this right, I'll try to explain what you discovered. A transcluded page adds a single return to the code, which becomes a space when rendered.

In edit mode:

A single return here
makes a single line.

Which renders as:

A single return here makes a single line.

So if the transcript in the Page namespace has a trailing return then the software reads that as two returns and makes a new line. Hope this helps, if you hadn't figured this out already. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 18:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It will be good to have this reminder here, next time I do one of those. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

DNB01[edit]

Those adjustments were just the right touch. Thanks! JamAKiska (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. The next step will be to add a similar parameter to {{DNB Poster}}. I think a similar upgrade to {{DNB}} can be avoided by adding a verbatim notice to {{Cite DNB}} like {{Cite Americana}} uses. These two adjustments are on my list if no one else gets to them first. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 23:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

EB1911 indexes[edit]

Thanks for the message. I will bear the point about Mmoves in mind - to be honest I didn't realise the Move option was still there (didn't there use to be a tab captioned "Move"?), but I have discovered where it is now.--Laverock ( Talk ) 08:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Herbert Welsh[edit]

I thought that name rang a bell when I saw it... Welsh and Coates were neighbors in Germantown. Coates' husband Edward was also a member of the Indian Rights Association. Sorry... I just like seeing Coates-related info pop up on WS! Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. All kinds of interesting people show up on Wikisource. I had forgotten Welsh gave the talk at Carl Schurz's 70th birthday. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

PSM main namespace article titles[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you moved Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_30/March_1887/Sketch_of_Edward_L_Youmans to include the dot (ASCII 46/ANSI 046).

Your changes are problematic for several reasons.

  1. I excluded them, (with most symbols), from the PSM main namespace titles to accommodate users with all manner of languages and computer backgrounds (MS-DOS, etc.) who type URL's. There is a (hi)story to this issue in my most recent employment prior to retiring (International Postal Union discussions and proposals), and based on these I decided to simplify the titles for all concerned.
  2. At current count there are 3,920 main namespace titles.
  3. There are numerous links in the indexes which would require change.

Each title also exists as a redirect, without the project name, volume and month/year, and duplicate article titles are resolved by disambiguation pages, courtesy of Hesperian. If you agree, the it's the redirects should be changed, but not the actual title. I am also aware that the Google search engine brings up all manner of variations of the name, and pages, regardless of the namespace.

Finally, I propose that desired changes by various editors should be collected in the project namespace, and implemented as a whole to maintain consistency. — Ineuw talk 06:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a marvelous project, and it seems a phenomenal amount of work. My changes have been aimed at making it compatible with other projects, where if there is a dot in the title this is used in the file name. Some OS's may have a problem. I use an old OS, and Javascript crashes my browser when I edit so I have to turn it off. But it doesn't make sense to have the troubles of a very small minority of users drive the whole presentation. It makes more sense to provide work arounds for those users, like redirects for MS-DOS users, and browser reconfiguration for people like me. If necessary, some sort of project page to explain the work arounds can be provided. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Numbering of author contributions of PSM[edit]

Please don't remove the numbering of PSM contributions in the Author namespace, as you have for Author:Eliza Ann Youmans, which I restored. The project is dynamic and numbering greatly helps to eliminate errors and track the contributions. I track additions on a volume by volume basis, because there are ~60 authored contributions are added in each volume and without Wikisource:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly/Authors S to Z|THIS LIST, and numbering, I have no way of knowing whom to add.— Ineuw talk 18:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Again my changes have been aimed at making the PSM project compatible with other projects, for example EB11, where multiple titles by an author are not numbered, just arranged alphabetically. For PSM, a chronological arrangement seems warranted, but numbering looks odd. If this scaffolding can be hidden somehow it would be better, or perhaps you, or I, can rethink the bookkeeping. I will try to work through the project page on changes like this in the future. Thank you for this project. I have found many articles of interest in it. I am currently working on the biographies of the Youmans in Wikipedia. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Transclusion from EB1911 Index pages to Mainspace pages[edit]

I was wondering why you are not working first from proofreading an Index page [EB1911 pieces specifically] before you build a Mainspace page. You had done so in the past, e.g. this to this, but not recently. I updated Millet (1814-1875)—copying & pasting your Mainspace work over to the corresponding Index pages & transcluding back to the Main again—for he is "related" to some other work I have done. Just curious, & Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

With EB1911, I work off-line a lot since I have the source text and images locally. The transclusion amounts to more formatting work, and sometimes I am up to it and sometimes not. Ultimately transclusion seems the format the articles should end up in, but I feel I am moving things ahead by proofing without transclusion. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I guess it just makes it more difficult to eventually get the work up to a validated status, or to "Text Quality 100%" (the ideal end-state) in the end for those who don't have the benefit of working from a "local" or hard copy. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The main thing for me is to have the article available in Wikisource. The rest is icing on the cake. The transclusion software makes it easier to check the text, but sources are readily available enough that it is not that hard to check without transclusion, even if you don't have the images and text locally. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Quantity and availability is good, but quality is better... I can personally attest to the fact that you do quality proofreading work—having re-proofread your work after copy/pasting the Millet text to the Index page, and only finding maybe one typo, I think—but I've also come across some spurious text here at WS as well (not yours) that some other proofreader/validator might overlook in a match-and-split process. I'm just picky, and like to do things like re-proofread even validated pages at times... It's not that difficult to "check without transclusion" as you stated, but it is still easier and more efficient for a final validator to work off an index page. And even if you are doing articles piecemeal, you don't have to proofread an entire EB1911 index page (which can be daunting if you only want to complete a small article), just make <!-- note --> at the section heading that you have proofread that section already, like section 1 here. Just a suggestion! Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Just thought to add that if you choose to not use my above suggestion(s), I won't continue to hound you about it! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I am pretty comfortable with my approach, but I will consider your suggestion. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a shame that you do not use the transclusion method (See Using transclusion there is now script to help build the transclusion page), but as you are comfortable with your approach, to help other editors please include in your page creations the volume=number parameter in the header, and put the following into the body of the text to indicate page numbers:

<div class=indented-page>{{page break|page number 123|left}}
Text
{{page break|page number 124|left}}
More text
</div>

A reader of the page then has the full set of information for building a citation (encyclopeida, volume, article name and page number(s) -- the page number is particularly useful for citing specific parts of long multi page articles, and as the standard citing method for short inline citations on Wikipedia).

See for example: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/O'Conor, Charles

--PBS (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. I do include the volume number from time to time. And I do use transclusion from time to time, but in this work I tend to use it less and less as I find it too time consuming for the things I wish to achieve. I do try to make it easy for those who are interested to convert it to a transcluded format if they wish. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, in some ways I think it might make more sense, especially for a choppy work like an encyclopedia where there can be several articles to a page, to transclude from the articles back to the pages for those odd people who wish to see things presented in the original page format. For me, the articles are the main interest. Some people have a fascination with pages. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bob, just thought you might be interested to know I just uploaded one volume of The American Cyclopaedia, here: Index:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume XII.djvu

I read through the discussion above, and just want to say I wholeheartedly enjoy and appreciate the work you do, and agree that it moves things forward. There's always time to shift formatting around and tie things more tightly to the source material, but I agree that the best thing is to work in a way that is enjoyable for you, and advances your own goals, as long as they are generally consistent with Wikisource's goals. -Pete (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Pete, Thank you. I think the proofreading and formatting is the main thing. The tables in the AmCyc articles I've been working through lately (states of the United States) are really a bear, and the illustrations are not inconsiderable. I'm glad you can see this is moving things forward. Thanks for the AmCyc volume. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A proposal for the PSM biographical article titles[edit]

This post is a long delayed reply to our previous conversations above, and I apologize for seemingly leaving this issue unresolved - for 30 days to be exact.

It may surprise you that after multiple reviews of my work, I also don't find the abbreviations appealing, and I propose the use of full names in the biographical article titles, while omitting and prefixes and suffixes and titles. The list of good reasons to do this is endless, and I don't wish to bore you, except that this follows Wikipedia guidelines for their biographical titles.

As far as the PSM project is concerned, the original publication did not follow any guidelines and they used the same format on majority of the bio articles. My only concern, as always, is the amount of deletions this generates.— Ineuw talk 05:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me here. I will reply at the PSM project talk page. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

re: {{Collier's}} and similar[edit]

Is there a reason why such dictionary templates link to Wikipedia but not to Wiktionary? - Amgine (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. The only reason I can see against it is infrequency of use, where for infrequent situations the multi-purpose other_projects can serve. But given an encyclopedia like EB11 tries to be a dictionary, a specialized Wiktionary link would be useful frequently enough to make sense in {{EB1911}}. Perhaps it would also be useful for {{Collier's}} as well. And I know {{NIE}} gets into etymology. {{EB1911}}, due to its age, is a little odd in that if the Wikipedia link is to be disabled, as may be the case for someone who just wants to link to Wiktionary, the wikipedia parameter must be used with an empty value. For the other templates, this is not necessary. This behavior I think should be preserved for backward compatibility, but just for the wikipedia parameter in {{EB1911}}. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the best candidates for this add-on are the ones that have Wikisource link templates on Wiktionary. Here on Wikisource, these templates are noted on the talk page for the work in question. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

New document creation[edit]

I am sorry I am trying to paste a document about the Statutes of Laborers 1351, to be clear I don't know what the havoc I am doing and please help me find a way to create a document, please & thank you.--GoShow (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

See Help:Adding texts. Let me know if this gives you the information you need. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

PSM images[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to the PSM project, but please don’t substitute incorrectly named high resolution images with a low resolution versions. Please send me a message and I will rename my mistake. Thanks. — Ineuw talk 05:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Part 2[edit]

Can you please explain why you duplicated and used low resolution images in Volume 57 of PSM (before I ask for their deletion)? There are clear instructions on image naming, as well as detailed information on the preparation of the uploaded images. — Ineuw talk 07:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I remember doing some images for an article about MIT some time ago, but I believe I named them according to the PSM convention, and they were high resolution. And I don't remember ever substituting a low-resolution image for a high-resolution one. This would make no sense at all. Can you give me a specific example(s)? Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
One example is HERE. One problem is that all your uploads simply duplicated existing images instead of just replacing the old. In naming the images, I always omit the dots (.). And, use only lower case with the exception of a person’s name. This is to ease the work of anyone using a case sensitive OS like Mac or Linux.
Also, all your images were marked as low resolution by a commons bot.— Ineuw talk 18:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the example. This is the MIT article I mentioned. I see by the edit history for the page you mention, that there was no image linked into it at the time I did my edit, so I did no substitution, at least for that example. In this case "proofread" mostly consisted of linking in the image and deleting extraneous material. There was no substitution. When I saw there was no image linked into the page, I must have assumed the image just hadn't been uploaded yet. I should have done a search for the prefix string of the image name and double checked, and I will do that in the future.
The image I uploaded is a poor image, as I acknowledged in a comment when I uploaded it at commons: "This is a poor reproduction taken from the djvu file. A better reproduction can most likely be obtained from the page viewer at archive.org, but these scans are currently unavailable 'due to issues with the item's content.'" The version of the your image existing at that date does seem poor although nominally of higher resolution, but I don't think I knew about its existence at all. I see that today you uploaded a better version of your image today. You went to a different archive.org source, and I wish I had found that one when I did uploaded my version of the image.
So in retrospect I will fault myself for not doing a search for the image at commons, but I don't think I did too badly. You are right, I did upload low-resolution images, but only because that was the best I could find at the time. Running into the archive.org message was kind of a jolt, as I figured they had taken PSM completely off line, and I didn't think them capable of that sort of censorship. I did not do any substitution that I can see, and you should do one before you have the images I uploaded deleted.
Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to your detailed instructions on uploading images. I don't make a habit of uploading PSM images, and I just did it based on the images I had seen uploaded. I do appreciate the efforts you have made to prepare these articles. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group[edit]

Wikisource, the free digital library is moving towards better implementation of book management, proofreading and uploading. All language communities are very important in Wikisource. We would like to propose a Wikisource User Group, which would be a loose, volunteer organization to facilitate outreach and foster technical development, join if you feel like helping out. This would also give a better way to share and improve the tools used in the local Wikisources. You are invited to join the mailing list 'wikisource-l' (English), the IRC channel #wikisource, the facebook page or the Wikisource twitter. As a part of the Google Summer of Code 2013, there are four projects related to Wikisource. To get the best results out of these projects, we would like your comments about them. The projects are listed at Wikisource across projects. You can find the midpoint report for developmental work done during the IEG on Wikisource here.

Global message delivery, 23:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)